The lawsuit addresses the bizarre and shocking issue of Monsanto harassing and threatening organic farmers with lawsuits of "patent infringement" if any organic farmer ends up with any trace amount of GM seeds on their organic farmland. Of course, the organic farmers don’t want anything to do with that ole contaminated GM seed in the first place ... But now they have to worry about getting sued by the very monster they abhor, and even have to spend extra money and land (for buffers which only sometimes deter the contaminated seed from being swept by the wind into their crop land). At this point, they are even having to resort to not growing at all the following organic plants: soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola, …just to protect themselves from having any (unwanted) plant that Monsanto could possibly sue them over.

In early February, Chinese officials decided to no longer accept genetically modified rice. During that same week, British activists succeeded in getting Monsanto to withdraw from the UK. The public's ire against the agribusiness giant was so intense, they're liquidating their entire UK operations, and even contemplating pulling out of France, Germany, and the Czech Republic due to similar opposition.

In early February, Chinese officials decided to no longer accept genetically modified rice. During that same week, British activists succeeded in getting Monsanto to withdraw from the UK. The public's ire against the agribusiness giant was so intense, they're liquidating their entire UK operations, and even contemplating pulling out of France, Germany, and the Czech Republic due to similar opposition.

Wow, the story about Monsanto in the UK and Europehas really changed in a short time. What was the abandonment of the seed ceral business is now a complete abandonment of most of Europe ... if one believes the hype, of course. Wheat and barley is all that Monsanto would seel in Europe?

Anti-GM campaigners have welcomed a decision by biotechnology giant Monsanto to pull out of the European seed cereal business. The announcement came as the Government published its report into GM crop trials and its effects on the environment and wildlife. Monsanto, the huge US company that has pioneered GM crops, issued a statement which announced its "intention to exit from its European cereal seed business".

Nope, there are other aspects listed in the same article:

Monsanto said it will immediately begin to seek a buyer for all or parts of its cereal seed business. It said it intended to move its crop protection and oilseed rape business to a new base in Cambridge.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

In early February, Chinese officials decided to no longer accept genetically modified rice. During that same week, British activists succeeded in getting Monsanto to withdraw from the UK. The public's ire against the agribusiness giant was so intense, they're liquidating their entire UK operations, and even contemplating pulling out of France, Germany, and the Czech Republic due to similar opposition.

Wow, the story about Monsanto in the UK and Europehas really changed in a short time. What was the abandonment of the seed ceral business is now a complete abandonment of most of Europe ... if one believes the hype, of course. Wheat and barley is all that Monsanto would seel in Europe?

Anti-GM campaigners have welcomed a decision by biotechnology giant Monsanto to pull out of the European seed cereal business. The announcement came as the Government published its report into GM crop trials and its effects on the environment and wildlife. Monsanto, the huge US company that has pioneered GM crops, issued a statement which announced its "intention to exit from its European cereal seed business".

Nope, there are other aspects listed in the same article:

Monsanto said it will immediately begin to seek a buyer for all or parts of its cereal seed business. It said it intended to move its crop protection and oilseed rape business to a new base in Cambridge.

Yeah, so they are not "entirely" out! But they are sure getting bumped around from here to there .... and I wonder if they ever imagined what a tough time they'd have of it. I can't imagine they wouldn't have known and they have, in fact, set aside a hefty amount in their budget for inevitable law suites against them. But people have a way of organizing to get the truth out and protect themselves against bullies.

Will be interesting to see how that suite by the 300,000 organic farmers against them in the US goes in coming months.

It's a crazy experiment and we are the guinea pigs. Whatever happened to the "cautionary principle"? They seem to have tossed it.

Wow, the story about Monsanto in the UK and Europehas really changed in a short time. What was the abandonment of the seed ceral business is now a complete abandonment of most of Europe ... if one believes the hype, of course. Wheat and barley is all that Monsanto would seel in Europe?

Anti-GM campaigners have welcomed a decision by biotechnology giant Monsanto to pull out of the European seed cereal business. The announcement came as the Government published its report into GM crop trials and its effects on the environment and wildlife. Monsanto, the huge US company that has pioneered GM crops, issued a statement which announced its "intention to exit from its European cereal seed business".

Nope, there are other aspects listed in the same article:

Monsanto said it will immediately begin to seek a buyer for all or parts of its cereal seed business. It said it intended to move its crop protection and oilseed rape business to a new base in Cambridge.

Yeah, so they are not "entirely" out! But they are sure getting bumped around from here to there .... and I wonder if they ever imagined what a tough time they'd have of it. I can't imagine they wouldn't have known and they have, in fact, set aside a hefty amount in their budget for inevitable law suites against them. But people have a way of organizing to get the truth out and protect themselves against bullies.

Will be interesting to see how that suite by the 300,000 organic farmers against them in the US goes in coming months.

It's a crazy experiment and we are the guinea pigs. Whatever happened to the "cautionary principle"? They seem to have tossed it.

Given the exhibited overstatements by some of your sources, it is hard to take the "facts" at face value. The claims of litigation resulting from contamination seem to be unsupported by the evidence. The Canadian litigation revolved around a farmer who planted seeds saved from the previous year's crop in direct violation of the agreement allowing the use of the seeds initially. Some specifics might make for a better understanding of what is hype and what has substance in this case.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wow, the story about Monsanto in the UK and Europehas really changed in a short time. What was the abandonment of the seed ceral business is now a complete abandonment of most of Europe ... if one believes the hype, of course. Wheat and barley is all that Monsanto would seel in Europe?

Anti-GM campaigners have welcomed a decision by biotechnology giant Monsanto to pull out of the European seed cereal business. The announcement came as the Government published its report into GM crop trials and its effects on the environment and wildlife. Monsanto, the huge US company that has pioneered GM crops, issued a statement which announced its "intention to exit from its European cereal seed business".

Nope, there are other aspects listed in the same article:

Monsanto said it will immediately begin to seek a buyer for all or parts of its cereal seed business. It said it intended to move its crop protection and oilseed rape business to a new base in Cambridge.

Yeah, so they are not "entirely" out! But they are sure getting bumped around from here to there .... and I wonder if they ever imagined what a tough time they'd have of it. I can't imagine they wouldn't have known and they have, in fact, set aside a hefty amount in their budget for inevitable law suites against them. But people have a way of organizing to get the truth out and protect themselves against bullies.

Will be interesting to see how that suite by the 300,000 organic farmers against them in the US goes in coming months.

It's a crazy experiment and we are the guinea pigs. Whatever happened to the "cautionary principle"? They seem to have tossed it.

Given the exhibited overstatements by some of your sources, it is hard to take the "facts" at face value. The claims of litigation resulting from contamination seem to be unsupported by the evidence. The Canadian litigation revolved around a farmer who planted seeds saved from the previous year's crop in direct violation of the agreement allowing the use of the seeds initially. Some specifics might make for a better understanding of what is hype and what has substance in this case.

It may not have been an overstatement at all ..... journalist could not know the entirety of Monsanto's wilely nature. I'm sure Monsanto has a thousand cards up their sleeves and they will put up a HUGE fight to stay alive. They are not going to go down without a major uproar. What they have now is major but, considering their Goliath nature, it is going to take a lot more grass-roots uproar to put further dents into their colossal undertakings which are seemingly impenetrable cathedrals of corporate entitlement.

By Canadian litigation, are you talking about Percy Schmeiser? I actually put 10 bucks towards his legal defence when he was battling the giant. Monsanto sued him and took his farm away back in the 90's and he courageously took that corporation on .... and won. He was and continues to be, outspoken. Schmeiser and his wife are modern day heroes and we can always learn from them because, as Margaret Mead said ...... “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does”.

About Schmeiser from his very educational website ....

Quote:

Imagine that a storm blows across your garden - and that now, without your knowledge and without your consent, foreign and genetically-manipulated seeds are in your vegetable patch which you have nourished and maintained for many years. A few days later, representatives of a multi-national corporate group pay you a visit at home, demand that you surrender your vegetables and file a criminal complaint against you requesting a fine a $20,000 USD against you - for the illegal use of patented and genetically-manipulated seeds.

You questioned the very simple argument that wind cannot be held responsible when it comes to GMO's. This is exactly one of Monsanto's arguments .... that because the wind actually contaminated the pristine seeds one has been growing and propogating for upteen years, the small time farmer must be sued for theft!

You also made a comment about Monsanto being the whipping boy, so to speak. Well, there is reason for that.

"Nowadays, nearly three-fourths of genetically-manipulated plants harvested worldwide originate from Monsanto's labs. Monsanto is a U.S. based corporate group which calls the dismal inventions such as DDT, PCB and Agent Orange its own."

This is an example of what the Canadian farmers had to endure and what they eventually fought against ... and this is what every European is now fighting against and what every American should fight against ... but to live in the US is to be insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world. Media makes it so.

Quote:

They were faced with the fear of being watched constantly, as they had been stalked both at home and farm by private investigators hired by Monsanto. Monsanto representatives had taken every effort to discredit Percy Schmeiser and ruin his reputation through unfounded rumors and gossip in his own community. Monsanto has publicly boasted about their toll-free snitch line and how they would go after farmers, and in the Schmeiser situation, Monsanto had clearly demonstrated their ability to intimate people for their own greed.

This is an example of what the Canadian farmers had to endure and what they eventually fought against ... and this is what every European is now fighting against and what every American should fight against ... but to live in the US is to be insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world. Media makes it so.

That really does nothing to support the claims of the inadvertent contamination of the crops resulting in litigation from Monsanto. It seems to be more emotional misdirection than anything.

A line by which farmers could be reported for violating a contract is something endured and fought against? Why not just live up to the agreement instead? That seems to be the simple solutuion to me, but then again I do not have the ulterior motives some do in this case.

Quote:

They were faced with the fear of being watched constantly, as they had been stalked both at home and farm by private investigators hired by Monsanto. Monsanto representatives had taken every effort to discredit Percy Schmeiser and ruin his reputation through unfounded rumors and gossip in his own community. Monsanto has publicly boasted about their toll-free snitch line and how they would go after farmers, and in the Schmeiser situation, Monsanto had clearly demonstrated their ability to intimate people for their own greed.

There was no greed in Schmeiser's camp? The court ruling clearly stated the judge did not believe the possible vectors of insertion of the Monsanto seed were probable and the fact that most of the crop was from Monsanto seed belied any but an active plan of stealing the technology for his own profit. That is court ruling not media spin.

In this case, the appellants’ saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute “utilization” of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42. The other questions of principle relevant to “use” under s. 42 also support that preliminary conclusion. By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants’ involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.

Case law shows that infringement is established where a defendant’s commercial or business activity involving a thing of which a patented part is a component necessarily involves use of the patented part. Infringement in this case therefore does not require use of the gene or cell in isolation. Infringement also does not require that the appellants have used Roundup herbicide as an aid to cultivation. First, this argument fails to account for the stand-by or insurance utility of the properties of the patented genes and cells. Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use. While a defendant’s conduct on becoming aware of the presence of the patented invention may assist in rebutting the presumption of use arising from possession, in the circumstances of this case, this presumption stands unrebutted. The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established.

<snip>

5 In the 1990s, many farmers, including five farmers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area, switched to Roundup Ready Canola, a canola variety containing genetically modified genes and cells that have been patented by Monsanto. Canola containing the patented genes and cells is resistant to a herbicide, Roundup, which kills all other plants, making it easier to control weeds. This eliminates the need for tillage and other herbicides. It also avoids seeding delays to accommodate early weed spraying. Monsanto licenses farmers to use Roundup Ready Canola, at a cost of $15 per acre.

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

<snip>

63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a licence. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.

64 Numerous samples were taken, some under court order and some not, from the canola plants grown from this seed. Moreover, the seed treatment plant, unbeknownst to Mr. Schmeiser, kept some of the seed he had brought there for treatment in the spring of 1998, and turned it over to Monsanto. A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen on samples supplied by Mr. Schmeiser did not support this result.

<snip>

66 The remaining question was how such a pure concentration of Roundup Ready Canola came to grow on the appellants’ land in 1998. The trial judge rejected the suggestion that it was the product of seed blown or inadvertently carried onto the appellants’ land (at para. 118):

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998.

However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey . . . that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop.

67 He concluded, at para. 120:

I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants’ crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

68 In summary, it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto. The issue is whether this conduct amounted to “use” of Monsanto’s invention — the glyphosate-resistant gene and cell.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

This is an example of what the Canadian farmers had to endure and what they eventually fought against ... and this is what every European is now fighting against and what every American should fight against ... but to live in the US is to be insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world. Media makes it so.

That really does nothing to support the claims of the inadvertent contamination of the crops resulting in litigation from Monsanto. It seems to be more emotional misdirection than anything.

A line by which farmers could be reported for violating a contract is something endured and fought against? Why not just live up to the agreement instead? That seems to be the simple solutuion to me, but then again I do not have the ulterior motives some do in this case.

Quote:

They were faced with the fear of being watched constantly, as they had been stalked both at home and farm by private investigators hired by Monsanto. Monsanto representatives had taken every effort to discredit Percy Schmeiser and ruin his reputation through unfounded rumors and gossip in his own community. Monsanto has publicly boasted about their toll-free snitch line and how they would go after farmers, and in the Schmeiser situation, Monsanto had clearly demonstrated their ability to intimate people for their own greed.

There was no greed in Schmeiser's camp? The court ruling clearly stated the judge did not believe the possible vectors of insertion of the Monsanto seed were probable and the fact that most of the crop was from Monsanto seed belied any but an active plan of stealing the technology for his own profit. That is court ruling not media spin.

In this case, the appellants’ saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute “utilization” of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42. The other questions of principle relevant to “use” under s. 42 also support that preliminary conclusion. By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants’ involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.

Case law shows that infringement is established where a defendant’s commercial or business activity involving a thing of which a patented part is a component necessarily involves use of the patented part. Infringement in this case therefore does not require use of the gene or cell in isolation. Infringement also does not require that the appellants have used Roundup herbicide as an aid to cultivation. First, this argument fails to account for the stand-by or insurance utility of the properties of the patented genes and cells. Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use. While a defendant’s conduct on becoming aware of the presence of the patented invention may assist in rebutting the presumption of use arising from possession, in the circumstances of this case, this presumption stands unrebutted. The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established.

<snip>

5 In the 1990s, many farmers, including five farmers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area, switched to Roundup Ready Canola, a canola variety containing genetically modified genes and cells that have been patented by Monsanto. Canola containing the patented genes and cells is resistant to a herbicide, Roundup, which kills all other plants, making it easier to control weeds. This eliminates the need for tillage and other herbicides. It also avoids seeding delays to accommodate early weed spraying. Monsanto licenses farmers to use Roundup Ready Canola, at a cost of $15 per acre.

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

<snip>

63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a licence. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.

64 Numerous samples were taken, some under court order and some not, from the canola plants grown from this seed. Moreover, the seed treatment plant, unbeknownst to Mr. Schmeiser, kept some of the seed he had brought there for treatment in the spring of 1998, and turned it over to Monsanto. A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen on samples supplied by Mr. Schmeiser did not support this result.

<snip>

66 The remaining question was how such a pure concentration of Roundup Ready Canola came to grow on the appellants’ land in 1998. The trial judge rejected the suggestion that it was the product of seed blown or inadvertently carried onto the appellants’ land (at para. 118):

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998.

However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey . . . that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop.

67 He concluded, at para. 120:

I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants’ crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

68 In summary, it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto. The issue is whether this conduct amounted to “use” of Monsanto’s invention — the glyphosate-resistant gene and cell.

Yes Wayne, ... it's all there. But the courts also subsequently ruled that Shmeiser made no profit from the GMO's and it was ordered that Monsanto had to "clean up" their tainted seed from his property.

Quote:

Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto in 1998 for allegedly violating patent rights for biotechnology via the cultivation of genetically modified canola seeds. He finally won his battle with the multinational corporation in an out-of-court settlement agreed upon in March 2008. Monsanto paid all clean-up costs for Schmeiser’s fields.

“It wasn’t just a victory for ourselves, but for all farmers,” Schmeiser said. “If you are contaminated now, there is an avenue, or a precedent has been set, where you can take Monsanto to court.”

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

Schmeiser pleased with victory over MonsantoIn an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

But GMO's continue to contaminate the fields of both conventional and organic farmers, and these farmers are forced to pay Monsanto $15 per acre for a contamination they do not want. Monsanto has invested huge amounts in the development of their technology .... and they must make a profit.

This is an example of what the Canadian farmers had to endure and what they eventually fought against ... and this is what every European is now fighting against and what every American should fight against ... but to live in the US is to be insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world. Media makes it so.

That really does nothing to support the claims of the inadvertent contamination of the crops resulting in litigation from Monsanto. It seems to be more emotional misdirection than anything.

A line by which farmers could be reported for violating a contract is something endured and fought against? Why not just live up to the agreement instead? That seems to be the simple solutuion to me, but then again I do not have the ulterior motives some do in this case.

Quote:

They were faced with the fear of being watched constantly, as they had been stalked both at home and farm by private investigators hired by Monsanto. Monsanto representatives had taken every effort to discredit Percy Schmeiser and ruin his reputation through unfounded rumors and gossip in his own community. Monsanto has publicly boasted about their toll-free snitch line and how they would go after farmers, and in the Schmeiser situation, Monsanto had clearly demonstrated their ability to intimate people for their own greed.

There was no greed in Schmeiser's camp? The court ruling clearly stated the judge did not believe the possible vectors of insertion of the Monsanto seed were probable and the fact that most of the crop was from Monsanto seed belied any but an active plan of stealing the technology for his own profit. That is court ruling not media spin.

In this case, the appellants’ saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute “utilization” of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42. The other questions of principle relevant to “use” under s. 42 also support that preliminary conclusion. By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants’ involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.

Case law shows that infringement is established where a defendant’s commercial or business activity involving a thing of which a patented part is a component necessarily involves use of the patented part. Infringement in this case therefore does not require use of the gene or cell in isolation. Infringement also does not require that the appellants have used Roundup herbicide as an aid to cultivation. First, this argument fails to account for the stand-by or insurance utility of the properties of the patented genes and cells. Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use. While a defendant’s conduct on becoming aware of the presence of the patented invention may assist in rebutting the presumption of use arising from possession, in the circumstances of this case, this presumption stands unrebutted. The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established.

<snip>

5 In the 1990s, many farmers, including five farmers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area, switched to Roundup Ready Canola, a canola variety containing genetically modified genes and cells that have been patented by Monsanto. Canola containing the patented genes and cells is resistant to a herbicide, Roundup, which kills all other plants, making it easier to control weeds. This eliminates the need for tillage and other herbicides. It also avoids seeding delays to accommodate early weed spraying. Monsanto licenses farmers to use Roundup Ready Canola, at a cost of $15 per acre.

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

<snip>

63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a licence. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.

64 Numerous samples were taken, some under court order and some not, from the canola plants grown from this seed. Moreover, the seed treatment plant, unbeknownst to Mr. Schmeiser, kept some of the seed he had brought there for treatment in the spring of 1998, and turned it over to Monsanto. A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen on samples supplied by Mr. Schmeiser did not support this result.

<snip>

66 The remaining question was how such a pure concentration of Roundup Ready Canola came to grow on the appellants’ land in 1998. The trial judge rejected the suggestion that it was the product of seed blown or inadvertently carried onto the appellants’ land (at para. 118):

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998.

However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey . . . that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop.

67 He concluded, at para. 120:

I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants’ crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

68 In summary, it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto. The issue is whether this conduct amounted to “use” of Monsanto’s invention — the glyphosate-resistant gene and cell.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes Wayne, ... it's all there. But the courts also subsequently ruled that Shmeiser made no profit from the GMO's and it was ordered that Monsanto had to "clean up" their tainted seed from his property.

Actually, this would have been the final ruling as the Supreme Court has no higher court for appeals. They did rule there was no ADDITIONAL profit from the sale of the crop due to the GMO aspect since he sold it for feed, there was no legal formula to use in awarding a payment to Monsanto under this case. There is no reference I can find that indicates a ruling for Monsanto to "clean up" the seed the court found had been intentionally planted by Mr. Schmeisser. I see his claim to that effect in an "out of court settlement", which sounds very unusual at face value given the court rulings.

Quote:

Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto in 1998 for allegedly violating patent rights for biotechnology via the cultivation of genetically modified canola seeds. He finally won his battle with the multinational corporation in an out-of-court settlement agreed upon in March 2008. Monsanto paid all clean-up costs for Schmeiser’s fields.

Huh? The Supreme Court ruling clearly stated that he had violated the patent rights. How would the battle continue passed that point?

Quote:

“It wasn’t just a victory for ourselves, but for all farmers,” Schmeiser said. “If you are contaminated now, there is an avenue, or a precedent has been set, where you can take Monsanto to court.”

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

Because he did not sell the product for a premium there was no additional profit according to the actual ruling. Is there a slightly less biased source to confirm any of his claims?

Quote:

Schmeiser pleased with victory over MonsantoIn an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

This sounds very odd since the courts ruled that he intentionally planted the crop, which would not be a contamination by definition.

Quote:

But GMO's continue to contaminate the fields of both conventional and organic farmers, and these farmers are forced to pay Monsanto $15 per acre for a contamination they do not want. Monsanto has invested huge amounts in the development of their technology .... and they must make a profit.

That is a claim which still has not been proved. This case clearly indicated a willful plan to acquire the GMO product, which was claimed to be initially from an unknown source. However, the actions indicated the intent, which also calls into question the honesty of the other claims.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

This is an example of what the Canadian farmers had to endure and what they eventually fought against ... and this is what every European is now fighting against and what every American should fight against ... but to live in the US is to be insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world. Media makes it so.

That really does nothing to support the claims of the inadvertent contamination of the crops resulting in litigation from Monsanto. It seems to be more emotional misdirection than anything.

A line by which farmers could be reported for violating a contract is something endured and fought against? Why not just live up to the agreement instead? That seems to be the simple solutuion to me, but then again I do not have the ulterior motives some do in this case.

Quote:

They were faced with the fear of being watched constantly, as they had been stalked both at home and farm by private investigators hired by Monsanto. Monsanto representatives had taken every effort to discredit Percy Schmeiser and ruin his reputation through unfounded rumors and gossip in his own community. Monsanto has publicly boasted about their toll-free snitch line and how they would go after farmers, and in the Schmeiser situation, Monsanto had clearly demonstrated their ability to intimate people for their own greed.

There was no greed in Schmeiser's camp? The court ruling clearly stated the judge did not believe the possible vectors of insertion of the Monsanto seed were probable and the fact that most of the crop was from Monsanto seed belied any but an active plan of stealing the technology for his own profit. That is court ruling not media spin.

In this case, the appellants’ saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute “utilization” of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42. The other questions of principle relevant to “use” under s. 42 also support that preliminary conclusion. By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants’ involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.

Case law shows that infringement is established where a defendant’s commercial or business activity involving a thing of which a patented part is a component necessarily involves use of the patented part. Infringement in this case therefore does not require use of the gene or cell in isolation. Infringement also does not require that the appellants have used Roundup herbicide as an aid to cultivation. First, this argument fails to account for the stand-by or insurance utility of the properties of the patented genes and cells. Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use. While a defendant’s conduct on becoming aware of the presence of the patented invention may assist in rebutting the presumption of use arising from possession, in the circumstances of this case, this presumption stands unrebutted. The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established.

<snip>

5 In the 1990s, many farmers, including five farmers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area, switched to Roundup Ready Canola, a canola variety containing genetically modified genes and cells that have been patented by Monsanto. Canola containing the patented genes and cells is resistant to a herbicide, Roundup, which kills all other plants, making it easier to control weeds. This eliminates the need for tillage and other herbicides. It also avoids seeding delays to accommodate early weed spraying. Monsanto licenses farmers to use Roundup Ready Canola, at a cost of $15 per acre.

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

<snip>

63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a licence. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.

64 Numerous samples were taken, some under court order and some not, from the canola plants grown from this seed. Moreover, the seed treatment plant, unbeknownst to Mr. Schmeiser, kept some of the seed he had brought there for treatment in the spring of 1998, and turned it over to Monsanto. A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant. Only a grow-out test by Mr. Schmeiser in his yard in 1999 and by Mr. Freisen on samples supplied by Mr. Schmeiser did not support this result.

<snip>

66 The remaining question was how such a pure concentration of Roundup Ready Canola came to grow on the appellants’ land in 1998. The trial judge rejected the suggestion that it was the product of seed blown or inadvertently carried onto the appellants’ land (at para. 118):

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998.

However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey . . . that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop.

67 He concluded, at para. 120:

I find that in 1998 Mr. Schmeiser planted canola seed saved from his 1997 crop in his field number 2 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and that seed was the primary source for seeding and for the defendants’ crops in all nine fields of canola in 1998.

68 In summary, it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto. The issue is whether this conduct amounted to “use” of Monsanto’s invention — the glyphosate-resistant gene and cell.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes Wayne, ... it's all there. But the courts also subsequently ruled that Shmeiser made no profit from the GMO's and it was ordered that Monsanto had to "clean up" their tainted seed from his property.

Actually, this would have been the final ruling as the Supreme Court has no higher court for appeals. They did rule there was no ADDITIONAL profit from the sale of the crop due to the GMO aspect since he sold it for feed, there was no legal formula to use in awarding a payment to Monsanto under this case. There is no reference I can find that indicates a ruling for Monsanto to "clean up" the seed the court found had been intentionally planted by Mr. Schmeisser. I see his claim to that effect in an "out of court settlement", which sounds very unusual at face value given the court rulings.

Quote:

Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto in 1998 for allegedly violating patent rights for biotechnology via the cultivation of genetically modified canola seeds. He finally won his battle with the multinational corporation in an out-of-court settlement agreed upon in March 2008. Monsanto paid all clean-up costs for Schmeiser’s fields.

Huh? The Supreme Court ruling clearly stated that he had violated the patent rights. How would the battle continue passed that point?

Quote:

“It wasn’t just a victory for ourselves, but for all farmers,” Schmeiser said. “If you are contaminated now, there is an avenue, or a precedent has been set, where you can take Monsanto to court.”

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned.

Because he did not sell the product for a premium there was no additional profit according to the actual ruling. Is there a slightly less biased source to confirm any of his claims?

Quote:

Schmeiser pleased with victory over MonsantoIn an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.

This sounds very odd since the courts ruled that he intentionally planted the crop, which would not be a contamination by definition.

Quote:

But GMO's continue to contaminate the fields of both conventional and organic farmers, and these farmers are forced to pay Monsanto $15 per acre for a contamination they do not want. Monsanto has invested huge amounts in the development of their technology .... and they must make a profit.

That is a claim which still has not been proved. This case clearly indicated a willful plan to acquire the GMO product, which was claimed to be initially from an unknown source. However, the actions indicated the intent, which also calls into question the honesty of the other claims.

I don't know if there was greed in Schmeiser's camp .... maybe and maybe not. But I do know that Monsanto is a corporation and the dynamics and psychology of corporations demand profit in no uncertain terms. It is their raison d'etre .... We can applaud their efforts to "feed the world", but you know, they will feed the world on THEIR terms. If we allow ourselves to carry on in this way, we will miss vital opportunities to get at the root because energy will be wasted with the unending complications that GMO's present.

Monsanto and their ilk are a wrong turn. This is my opinion. It is both rational and intuitive. But as head should be informed by heart .... rationality might also be curbed. Rationality gave us factory farming, and what a mess they turned out to be.

We are not machines. Our Earth is a living system and she will surely spit us out as she has done on many occassions throughout history. We are at yet another crisis point, but this one is mega and has much to do with social justice as it has to do with environmental justice. This time, it is unprecedented and inextricably intertwined.

What we do the Earth, we do the people. Monsanto is a corporation like Coke or Exxon Mobile. Sorry Wayne ...... none of these corporations are solutions. In fact, the corporate model has got to go. They are homogenzing the entire planet which is just ..... weird! We have already lost species, languages and cultures and now Monsanto and their ilk would like to also homogenize seeds?

The idea of re-locating to some other planet to plant gmo seeds is absolutely depressing! Another vision is welcome here.

As for Monsanto, check out this website which gives the opinion of one man who really does combine head and heart .... A geneticist who we all know ... David Suzuki .... flip through these pages and find where he speaks of the "precautinary principle".

Sorry, but the quote was supposed to have a reference and that page does not exist. The first couple of dozen hits on a search trace back to this author. The quoted statement should not have been made by any reputable scientist because if applied there would be no movement in science because one can never know the outcome of all possibilities to all degrees.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Sorry, but the quote was supposed to have a reference and that page does not exist. The first couple of dozen hits on a search trace back to this author. The quoted statement should not have been made by any reputable scientist because if applied there would be no movement in science because one can never know the outcome of all possibilities to all degrees.

What are you talking about? I posted a link for you to look at and flip through a few pages .... Can you not respond?